The Supernatural in the Tragedies of Euripides 95 



aroused and set in motion by human will in the curse. The be- 

 liefs in the intervention of protecting and punishing supernatural 

 powers, inherited curses, and evil destinies play an important part 

 in the tragedies of .^schylus, but according to him it is not a 

 blind fate with which man has to deal ; he is only blinded and 

 hastened to destruction when he has voluntarily made an evil 

 choice : 



Pers. 742: 



dXX' OTap crirevdr) tIs avros, x'^ ??e6s avvairTeTac. 

 " When the fool to folly hasteth, God shall speed him to his fall." 



According to Sophocles destiny as the mere expression of the will 

 of the Godhead is just. CEdipus, for example, when informed of 

 the evil in store acts " neither seeing nor inquiring " (oi;?>' opcbv 

 oi;??' icFTopcov) in killing his father and marrying his mother. It is 

 the shortsightedness of man rather than the deception of God 

 which brings him to ruin. Most of the curses in the tragedies of 

 Euripides are imprecations common in the every day life of the 

 Greeks, and they throw but little light on our question regarding 

 the supernatural. But where he refers to hereditary or family 

 curses, as in the " Hippolytus " and the " Phoenissse," he makes 

 them a part of inevitable fate. In conformity with his conception 

 of the providential government of the world he identifies them 

 with unknown forces that, past human control, bring man to ruin. 

 That Euripides did not intend to cast doubt on the sacred char- 

 acter of oaths has already been stated ; for the two examples in 

 question see I. A. 394 ff., and Hipp. 612. In reference to the 

 general outcry against the latter passage Mahaffy with indigna- 

 tion expresses his doubt " whether any criticism, ancient or mod- 

 ern, contains among its myriad injustices, whether of negligence, 

 ignorance, or deliberate malice, a more flagrantly absurd accusa- 

 tion." (Classical Greek Literature, Vol. I, page 335.) Euripides 

 throughout his plays shows a deep regard for the sanctity of 

 oath, but as a profound and advanced thinker he rejects the 

 narrow and unintelligent formalism of the herd. It is not the 

 mere formula of oath which when once pronounced is absolutely 

 binding, even though one be not able to keep one's word. In the 



149 



